CCI Closes Antitrust Probe Into Google Over Real-Money Gaming Apps

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has formally closed its antitrust investigation into Google regarding the company’s policies for real-money gaming (RMG) applications. The regulator concluded that the enactment of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which came into force on May 1, 2026, has fundamentally altered the legal landscape, rendering the original complaint by WinZO Games moot. The CCI noted that the new legislation imposes a comprehensive, game-neutral prohibition on online money games, their advertisements, and related financial transactions, effectively eliminating the market that was the subject of the antitrust inquiry.

The case, which originated in 2022, centered on allegations that Google abused its dominant position in the Android ecosystem by selectively allowing only daily fantasy sports and rummy apps on its Play Store while excluding other skill-based gaming platforms. WinZO had argued that these restrictions created a two-tier market that disadvantaged competing developers. While the CCI had initiated a detailed investigation in November 2024 after finding prima facie evidence of potential anti-competitive conduct, the regulator ultimately determined that continuing the proceedings would serve no practical purpose under the current statutory framework.

The primary driver for the closure of the case is the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. This legislation does not distinguish between games of skill and games of chance, effectively banning all online money games and their associated services. Because the law prohibits the very activities that WinZO sought to facilitate through its complaint, the CCI determined that it could no longer grant the remedies originally requested. Directing Google to host or advertise such applications would now be in direct conflict with the new statutory requirements.

The CCI emphasized that its decision to close the matter was not a finding on the merits of the original antitrust allegations. The regulator clarified that it had not reached a conclusion on whether Google’s past conduct—specifically the operation of its pilot program for daily fantasy sports and rummy—constituted an abuse of dominance. By closing the case, the Commission has effectively set aside its November 2024 order that had directed the Director General to investigate the matter.

During the pendency of the investigation, Google had attempted to resolve the dispute through the CCI’s commitment mechanism. In February 2025, the company proposed a revised plan to allow all legally permissible skill-based real-money games on the Play Store, subject to specific certification and safety requirements. Google also sought to formalize the closure of its pilot program and prohibit advertisements for all real-money games as part of this commitment.

However, the CCI rejected the necessity of these commitments, observing that the restrictions Google proposed were now mandated by law rather than being voluntary competition remedies. The Commission noted that accepting such an offer might incorrectly frame mandatory statutory compliance as a negotiated competition remedy. Consequently, Google had already taken proactive steps to shut down its pilot program and cease accepting real-money gaming advertisements as of January 2026, well before the new law officially took effect.

WinZO Games, the original complainant, sought to withdraw its case during a hearing on August 25, 2026, citing the significant change in the legal environment. While the CCI acknowledged this request, it clarified that its decision to close the case was not contingent upon the complainant’s withdrawal. The Commission underscored that competition law proceedings are inquisitorial and conducted in the public interest, meaning that an informant does not hold the authority to unilaterally terminate an investigation once it has been initiated by the regulator.

Despite the closure, the CCI has kept the door open for future intervention. The regulator stated that if the relevant provisions of the 2025 Act are stayed, struck down, or repealed by the Supreme Court—where the law is currently being challenged—the Commission could take cognizance of Google’s conduct afresh. This ensures that the regulator retains the ability to address potential anti-competitive behavior should the legal landscape shift again.

Google has welcomed the CCI’s decision to conclude the matter, framing the outcome as a result of constructive engagement with the regulator throughout the investigative process. A company spokesperson stated, "We welcome the CCI’s decision to conclude this matter. This order reflects our constructive engagement with the Commission throughout this process. We remain committed to building a safe and secure ecosystem." The company’s legal team, led by representatives from Chandhiok & Mahajan, had argued for the closure based on the impossibility of providing the requested remedies.

The closure marks the end of a high-profile dispute that highlighted the tensions between platform gatekeepers and gaming developers in India. While the immediate antitrust concerns have been set aside, the broader regulatory environment for online gaming remains in flux due to ongoing legal challenges in the Supreme Court. For now, the industry must operate within the strict confines of the 2025 Act, which has effectively standardized the treatment of all real-money gaming platforms across the digital ecosystem.

The CCI’s order leaves several questions regarding the long-term impact of the 2025 Act on the digital gaming sector. While the antitrust probe is closed, the validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act remains under active challenge before the Supreme Court of India. The CCI noted that no stay on the operation of the law has been brought to its notice, meaning the statutory ban remains in full force. Should the Supreme Court issue a stay or strike down specific provisions of the Act, the legal basis for the CCI’s closure could be revisited, potentially allowing for a fresh examination of Google’s platform policies if anti-competitive conduct is alleged in a new, lawful market environment.